lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.2.6_andrea2.bz2
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

>Once you have something like Oracle or an LDAP server serving out
>multi-megabyte data files, the equivalent btree is going to get awefully
>deep awefully quickly, and there's no simple way to expand the width of
>the tree dynamically to minimise that cost.

I have to agree with you ;). You are right and I was just worried about
that. Ok, I think I wasted time implemented rb-trees. At least it's been
fun.

>In other words, I can throw memory at hashing to make it faster, but
>trees have a fixed cost which necessarily grows with their size.

Agreed. Probably in normal usage rb-trees may scale better also because
most of files are not huge in size. But the performance drop that will
increase with the file size is bad and I agree that it's better to have a
clean design that can scale with minor changes under all scenarios.

I think tomorrow I'll drop RB-trees from here too.

If somebody think that it can make sense to have a rb-tree patch updated
with my latest changes, ask me and I'll produce it while removing
rbtrees from here (sigh!)...

Andrea Arcangeli


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.091 / U:0.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site